Interesting Times to be Canadian

Canadian politics has a reputation for being boring. Especially with the Whamma-Bamma-Obama election taking place just south of us. But not any more!

For my non-Canuckistani Avid Fans (what are there, two of you?) let me explain:

Canada had an election about six weeks ago.
In violation of a law he inflicted on us at the start of his first minority government, promising fixed election dates, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pulled the trigger and precipitated us into our third election in four years. At a cost of roughly 300 million dollars.

The outcome pleased nobody--the Conservative party retained a minority, the Liberals lost seats, the NDP gained a bit, and the Bloc Quebecois stayed at much the same level of support it's had since 1988 or so.

As the financial crunch deepened, Harper, facing accusations of not doing anything to blunt its impact, decided to slash ... democracy.

Briefly, Canada pays $1.95 per vote to its federal political parties. This was introduced in order to better regulate donations and donation limits. The Conservative party has a great deal of private money backing it up, as you might expect of a party clinging to the "don't-tax-corporations-or-the rich," economic policies of Reagan and Bush.

So in nothing less than a naked power grab, calculated to gut the opposition's finances, Harper decided that the way to save money in Ottawa was cut that $1.95 per vote--which would have saved about $30 million. A drop in the ocean, truly, when the auto sector is begging for billions.

Harper's supposed to be an economist. Supposed to be. Yet he introduced no stimulus measures, against the advice of any number of economists,and announced that, in utter contradiction of his own campaign promises, we might be facing a federal deficit (following his government's waste of the rainy-day surplus that successive Liberal governments had built for precisely such a contingency).

{Actually, the budget was predicted to remain balanced--based on assumptions that amounted to a Canadian astronaut discovering rubies on the moon.}

And when Harper gored the Opposition's ox he did Canada a favour. Because he woke them up.

The Liberals would have been floundering about looking for a leader for the next eighteen months or so, allowing Harper to possibly find another few folks to give him the mandate he's been claiming he got last time around.

The NDP and the Bloc would happily have continued voting with or against the government, as served their interests. But when the money gets yanked out of their hands, politicans get testy:

The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc have apparently worked out a coalition power-sharing agreement. Which could mean Harper will soon be off to his retirement ranch, presumably overlooking the oil sands his power was based on.

In response, Harper and his supporters have claimed:

1) It's some sort of dirty politics, possibly illegal.

Which fails to explain why Harper tried to do it in 2004.

And as for dirty politics--try taping an opposition conference call. Did someone say "illegal", Mr. Nixon ... I mean Harper?

Of course, Harper believes it's illegal only when it's his conversation being taped.

(Side note: it's long been suspected that the last election was held to forestall the parliamentary investigations into Harper's bribe to dying MP Chuck Cadman, as well as into the Conservative Party's "in-and-out" financial chicanery.)

2) It's "undemocratic".
Harper may believe this to be true--after all, he continually confuses his minority with a mandate.

But let's just check the numbers: 5.5 million voters went for the Conservatives. 8.5 chose one of the opposition parties.

So a coalition clearly represents more voters than the current government.

3) It's a "back-room deal" done without an election to really affirm the will of the people.

See my argument above. But also see Harper's communication policy--"What I say goes." Harper, historically, does more governing in the back room, out of sight of the Canadian populace, than any previous PM. He's muzzled press and his own ministers both--Partly to stop them saying things that might reveal the Conservative Party for the far-right party it actually is rather than the "centrist" organ it's portrayed as by Harper's flacks. Is it any wonder that every paper save the National Post is giving in to the Schadenfreude, just a little?

But even the Post has hard words for Steven Harper! That's gotta hurt.

As to the "will of the people,"--Harper has never had more than 38% of the population behind him. And with that kind of support the Liberals traditionally would have had a majority (as he's fond of pointing out).

4) It's "unprecedented" and that the correct thing would be for the opposition parties to trigger another election no-one wants, instead.

Because, well, Harper would never do anything like, say, get together with allies and make peace for the political good of the nation.

But in fact, there's been one more situation like this--although that coalition was formed to keep government viable, rather than topple it, so that this really is unprecedented in modern memory.


Put me down as inspired. That three squabbling parties with so little in common might just snatch the pie from Harper's mouth is a beautiful thing.

In every "Lassie" episode there was the moment known as the "Y'see Timmy ..." in which the Lesson of the Day was delivered.

Y'see Stevie, some people can get together, like. They put aside their differences and do soemthing that could benefit them all. It's called compromise."

CAVEAT SCHADENFREUDE
Now don't get me wrong--Having the Bloc Quebecois, a party dedicated to smashing Canada into three parts, in government makes me a little nervous. And I've never been wild about the NDP's economic policies.

But the Bloc is going to have to tread a very tight line alongside the federalist parties. And the NDP may possibly realize how disastrous some of those ideas are (not that they'd necessarily make things worse than Harper's would).

But Harper was wrong for the country, and for this time. The US just dumped his nearest ideological analogue, and had he not set up such an efficient smear machine and been facing an uninspiring opponent in Stephane Dion, Harper'd have been in his rocking chair already.

In response, Harper has given his MPs and supporters the go-ahead to use "any means necessary" to staunch the blood. But he's already lost a lot of support for his astounding hubris. Even his own party thinks he's nuts. If he manages to survive, he may look pretty good. But if the Conservatives lose government, I think we may soon see a leadership contest.

If Harper wanted me to actually admire his cojones, instead of regarding him as the bully he's always been, he'd step forward, apologize publicly to the nation for his confrontational, divisive, positively Cheneyesque governing style and offer the Liberals a power-sharing arrangement.

But that would require compromise. Something Steve Harper has never been able to manage.

There may be terrible things awaiting us under the coming Bloc Canada, or whatever we decide to call it. But it might just be fantastic.



In honour of which, here's the loverly Diana Krall, Canadienne extraordinaire--who sneers just like Mme Metro.